tflex

I would put it this way, Caesar's successes were more important and far greater than his failures.

Phil, check this site out, these are some of his important reforms. http://www.fenrir.dk/history/bios/caesar/reforms.php The only argument, I've heard from you is that Caesar is a failure because he was killed before he could continue his reforms and a civil war broke out after his death, therefore in your opinion he offered no solution. This argument doesn't hold water, the senators murdered him because they knew if he stayed alive he would pass all his reforms and make them permanent whether they liked it or not, the senators were well aware that Caesar finishes everything he starts. They figured if Caesar was murdered his ideas would die with him but they were dead wrong. Caesar's ideas turned out ot be larger than life and ironically by them murdering him they actually handed the republic it's death sentence exactly what they were trying to prevent. Death caught up quickly with each of those cowardly assassins soon after their despicable act. Caesar lived on symbolically thorugh his ideas and his political agenda was accepted by the Roman populace. Many of the reforms that Caesar could not implement because of his untimely death were enforced by Octavian. It was the senators that failed not Caesar. Caesar was a revolutionary, he was in the process of overthrowing a system that had been in place for hundreds of years, so when he died in the middle of this transformation immediately there was a power vacuum, the revolution was unfinished and civil war broke out. Is it not natural for civil war to break out in the middle of a revolution, especially when it's leader is assassinated? Anyhow when the dust settled Octavian was victorious and Caesar's legacy prevailed. Caesar was not made famous just by historians but also by the Roman people, Caesar lived on in their hearts after his death, he was a symbol of Rome itself. He was a hero, a soldier, military genius, brilliant political leader, reformer, revolutionary, philosopher and a tragic figure. If you say Caesar wasn't the greatest roman, even though I disagree I can understand your arguement, but to call him a failure is laughable, he is the epitomy of success. Also don't underestimate his invasion of Gaul, Caesar's conquest of Gaul was one the greatest military achievements in history. From Rome's orgin as a city state, the Gauls constantly harrassed them even invading Rome at one point. Before Caesar there was a failed attempt to defeat Gaul, the Romans recognized that so long as Gaul was independant it was a threat to Rome's expansion and existance. Outnumbered, Caesar annihilated the Gauls and by doing so he removed Rome's biggest obstacle and paved the way for Rome to grow into a formidable empire. "According to Plutarch, the whole campaign resulted in 800 conquered cities, 300 subdued tribes, one million men sold to slavery and another three million dead in battle fields. Ancient historians notoriously exaggerated numbers of this kind, but Caesar's conquest of Gaul was certainly the greatest military invasion since the campaigns of Alexander the Great. The victory was also far more lasting than those of Alexander's: Gaul never regained its Celtic identity, never attempted another nationalist rebellion, and remained loyal to Rome until the fall of the Western Empire in 476."wikipedia Even if you take 50% or 25% of those numbers it is still an outstanding military feat considering the world's population at that time and remember we are just talking about one of his campaigns. There were many others. Another one of Caesar's notable military accomplishments, is when he smashed Pompey's army which was almost twice as large as his own. Pure speculation, no facts to back it up. It's your own opinion not factual. I hope I answered your question.

The only thing thats deficient is your memory, your last post was a reply to Cato. The only reason things became chaotic after his death is because he was murdered in the middle of his massive transformation. Octavian fixed everything because he was able to live, he learned well from Caesars assasination. No doubt you will blame Caesar for being murdered by jealous thugs. The Caesar bashers are the same people that think he started the fall of the empire. The empire survived hundreds of years after his death. It's called blind hate with no objectivity. .

The best reason why Caesar is the greatest is that he simply was the saviour of Rome. For reasons that I have already mentioned the republic had become inefficient and impotent. Caesar recognized this and saw the need to transform a system that was breaking down and dragging down the loyal citizens of Rome with it. Caesar had to step in as a dictator or the republic risked having another general similar to Hannibal exploit it's weakness. To put it in few words, the republic had become soft and impotent and Caesar was Rome's *iagr* giving it a much needed boost by hardening it from the inside thorough his reforms and expanding it from the outside through his successful military conquests. Therefore, Caesar prolonged Rome's empire and for this he should be thanked not mocked. Hail Caesar!!!!

The problem with Cincinnatus was simply that he is a character based largely in legend. The details of the history are simple not available. I am not suggesting that Livy created him out of thin air... certainly not... only that because of the taint of the unknown I am personally forced to find another candidate. However the legend of Cincinnatus certainly qaulifies as 'the Greatest Roman Figure'. Wasn't Marcus Furius Camillus accomplishments also semi-mythical? It is said that his liberation of Rome was nothing but a cover up by Livy in an attempt to hide the enforcement of the embarrassing treaty that was signed between the Romans and the Gauls.

Yes, late emperors have been given a bad rap. The empire was crumbling within, therefore, a lot of good emperors were constantly marred by conflict which ultimately overshadowed there positive achievements and stained their legacy. Everything you mentioned is true, but in order to judge an emperor's legacy you must look at what occured under their reign and the consequences of their actions. These facts cannot be reversed, under Valens reign a pivotal battle was fought and lost under his leadership, and the loss of this battle accelerated Rome's downfall. That is why Valens is considered by historians as one of the worst emperors and I think rightfully so because of the disaster that occured under his leadership. First of all his instructions were obviously not carried out, his orders were simply ignored by the governor and the soldiers which proves he was not in control of the situation because he was a weak leader. A good leader will make his subordinates follow his orders no matter what. Second, if you understand "the culture and social structure of how Romans treated barbarians" then surely emperor Valens who was present at the time must have known this. Based on that he should never have allowed the Goths into Roman territory in the first place. It would have been a lot easier for the emperor and his army to fight the goths when they were outside Roman territory for obvious reasons. But after he let them in he should have done everything in his power to prevent a revolt from occuring. The responsibility always lies at the top. Lets not forget that Gratian was the emperor in the west and Valens in the east. Gratian is not responsible for the bad decisions taken by his uncle in the east, he had his own problems to deal with. Anyway, even if Valens did not want to wait for his nephew to come to his rescue for the reasons you mentioned, it still does not excuse Valens for engaging around 200,000 thousand revolting barbarians without a real strategy to win. He should have either swallowed his pride and waited for his nephew to arrive or tried to buy some time by apeasing the demands of the goths, that way he could have re-grouped for a future confrontation at his own choosing. I sincerely believe that Valens was just not up for the job, great military leaders such as Scipio or Caesar always shine when it matters the most, they somehow find a way to win the big battles no matter what the odds are. The fact is Valens might have done well for Rome but when it came time to the mother of all battles he failed miserably, he fought courageously but blindly. Being an Emperor Valens had the power and authority to shape Rome's legacy and his own into a successful one but he failed miserably because he was a bad emperor.

Thats like saying Washington could not have been the father of the U.S. if the French didn't help them in the revolution against the English. Neos dinosys, that was a very interesting piece about Valens. I'm sure he had good intentions but that doesn't mean he is not responsible for the rebellion that took place. He should have strictly instructed the local governors not to treat the Visgoths like dogs. When he decided to let them inside Roman territory he should have treated them as equals and i think that would have prevented the massive rebellion that took place. Also, I read somewhere that Valens did not want to share the glory of defeating the rebellion with his Co-Emperor Gratian, thats why he decided to go into the battle alone.

I think Valens does not belong with the others after all he permitted the Visigoths to settle in the Danubian provinces inside Roman territory in their hundreds of thousands. When the barbarians rebelled he decided not to wait for his co-emperor who was coming to his aid but instead decided to attack a huge Goth force that destroyed him and his army. Both decisions taken by Valens ended up being disasterous for the empire, it broke Rome's back, the goths were now inside Roman territory flowing with confidence after annihilating a Roman emperor and his army, it was the beginning of the end. For that reason Valens should be seriously considered as one of the worst Roman leaders not the best. His bad reputation is well deserved.

Looking back through the pages it seems as though the argument is almost always between Caesar and Scipio for the title of the greatest Roman. Some other names were mentioned from the republic and early empire, but hardly any were metioned from the mid to late empire before the Byzantine era. I guess it's harder to find great leaders from that time since the empire was already in decline and lacked strong leaders, but Rome was still the most powerful empire and there must have been some great generals, emperors, and politicians that were able to prolong Rome's survival that can be mentioned as the greatest. Any names?

I reluctantly agree with Cato on this one, even though he is a Caesar basher he does always make good comparative arguments and provides a lot of insight on the subject in question. He makes a good case against Caesar and a good case for the republic. I still think Caesar is the greatest though. Primus, I am interested to know who you think is the greatest? in terms of a true Roman thats most impressive in his deeds for the Roman civilization.

Pompey the great had a good army what happened to him? Caesars troops were great because he made them great under his superb leadership, you've made my case for me. Caesar faced many different opponents and defeated them, a lot more then Scipio. Scipio made his name by defeating a weakened Hannibal.

Lets not forget that Caesar was outnumbered in his battles, yet he still managed to annihilate all his enemies. You mentioned Pompey as great, he was annihilated too by non other then Caesar. Scipio had all Rome behind him, Caesar had his legion but a lot of Romans were not supporting him. Scipio's army were fighting for their survival they had to win or die. Caesar took his army to foriegn lands all the way to Brittania to conquer new territories and still managed to lead his troops to victory everytime.

Hooraay, we have another 2nd punic war fan. These are great choices and two of the ablest generals the world has ever seen. I agree, Claudius Nero is not so famous and very underrated. He was as a great military tactician.

It was one of Rome's shiniest hours and I don't want to take anything away from that. But my point was Scipio was a good general just not of the same caliber as Caesar.

I think you might want to re-phrase that to "Some of Caesars conquests were considered illegal by some of the senate members." These senate members would number about 18 and were led by Cato. I will refrase it this way. "Some of Caesars's conquests were considered illegal by some influential senate members led by the powerful Cato." I would also add that the republic itself as a system conflicted with Caesar's conquests. Thats why the system failed because it prevented great generals like Caesar from breaking out and doing what they were born to do, which is to conqueur and rule or vise versa.

Don't you think that Scipio's win at Zama had more to do with Carthage shortchanging Hannibal. Scipio had Rome to rely on. Rome suppots it's own and provided him with an army, weaponary, supplies, reinforcements etc. Poor Hannibal had no support from his country he practically had to earn everything. Basically, Carthage gave Hannibal the finger.

Phil, I agree with you to the point that the republic laid down the foundations for Rome to become an empire. But Caesars conquests were his own, the senate did not approve of his actions. Infact all the senate wanted was to keep him out of Rome fighting in Spain and Gaul hoping that somehow he would fail or get killed. Some of Caesars conquests were considered illegal by the senate. When they saw Caesar was succeeding they ordered him to disband his army and go back to Rome. Even though Rome was still a republic, Caesar was operating more so under a self imposed principate system than a republic. The republic had outlived it's time and was already faultering until Caesar started reforming it by centralizing the government after he won the civil. Therefore you cannot credit the republic for Caesar's successful conquests if the republic was against him. The republic was good in the early years but it outgrew itself and would not have been able to maintain such a large empire that rapidly expanded from Caesar to Trajan.

Yes I agree, democracy and being nice to your subjects never produced great empires. Ofcourse, Caesar recognized that early on and went about his business accordingly.

If you are going to start building great empires, it would be almost impossible to do so under a republic. An empire needs to be steered in one direction with one descision maker that is wise enough to listen to good advise. The military is better served when the senate stays out of it's affairs and leave all decisions to it's commander. In a republic the senate would not be able to maintain such a large empire, different beliefs and views would bring about conflict and indecision which ultimately would lead to an inefficient military command. A good example of that is the Battle of Cannae which some how produced 2 consuls sharing equal power and leading Rome to one of their worst defeat that almost wiped them out before they even started. Thats why as soon as Rome began to principate their empire flourished and expanded.

I already made my case for Caesar being a great conqueror, plus the facts speak for themselves. Caesar the general is an equal to Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan. His expeditions might have been illegal according to the senate but so what. He conquered new land and significantly expanded Rome's empire and power to the North and to the East. The senate was impotent anyway, had Rome remained a republic and continued to be dependant on the senate, the empire would never have reached the Zenith that it did under Caesar and the Emperors. If it wasn't for Caesar, Rome would have been remembered the same way as Athens and classical Greece. Caesar changed Rome from a great city with allies here and there to a self-sufficient coloussal military powerhouse which ultimately led to the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Caesar was Rome not the senate, therefore Caesar should make the rules and give the orders not an impotent senate filled with cowardly assassins. I would have liked to see Brutus try to stab Caesar on his own, but ofcourse he knew better then that, Caesar would have made pork chops out of him with his bare hands. Brutality was highly regarded in Roman culture. Well written LEG X EQ

Octavian/Augustus came the closest but just fell short of Caesar's unmatchable accomplishments. I would say Octavian is almost an equal of Caesar.

My loyalty is only for Caesar, everybody else was a pretender. Some were great pretenders and some were terrible pretenders. There is only one Caesar, I hope it is the same for you. HAIL CAESAR

Scipio was a skilled general but he is also one dimensional, he was a great military general nothing more and nothing less. Julius was multi dimensional, he contributed militarily, politically and philosophically to Rome. He won countless major battles and significantly expanded the Roman Empire, he crushed rebellions in Spain, his conquest of Gaul was successful though he was severely outnumbered, he defeated a much larger German army and crossed to the east of the Rhine, he annahilated Nervii and the Belgai tribes, he pushed all the way up north to Brittania which was a great feat on it's own and smashed the Britons, he even destroyed rival Roman armies under the leadership of Pompey who was a good general in his own right, he destroyed an Egyptian Army and returned land that was previously lost in Asia Minor through his sheer military genius. I can also start talking about his political accomplishments but I will never finish, I would have to write an essay about that. No doubt Scipio was a brilliant general and indeed he did prevent Rome from being annahilated by a much weaker Hannibal than his earlier days, that fact cannot be overlooked. Scipio's army were fighting for their livelyhoods, they had to win otherwise they would not have a home to go back to. But Caesar's accomplishments cannot be matched, he is in a league of his own.

Hadrian was great because he contributed to the long term well being of the empire by setting a limit to expansion. As you mentioned, Marcus Aurelius was one hell of a scholar and philosopher, he was also an excellent emperor but you need to be more than a philospher to have the privelage of being named the "Greatest". note: I still feel sorry for poor old Niobe.

I understand you choosing Trajan or Augustus, but I do have a problem with Marcus Aurelius. I agree Marcus was one of the great emperors but he lacked great accomplishments. Julius, Augustus and Trajan were movers they added to the empire and were great visionaries. Marcus Aurelius and Antonius Pius ruled during the most peaceful and prosperous time of the empire, I think they both ruled admirably for their time but they did little to strengthen the empire for the long term.